A Note on the American Psyche

In one of my stories last year I reviewed Shock Doctrine by fellow Canadian Naomi Klein. She recounted in depressing detail the horrors visited on other nations by American policies—almost always on behalf of business.

(CALGARY, Alberta) - With all the negative commentary on my “Shutdown” piece, I would just like to clear the air on what I write and why I write it.

Note: Rather than qualify every statement let me make clear that when I say “Americans”, I mean most or the vast majority of American citizens, but not all.

At the same time let me emphasize that I don’t believe that Americans are “bad” people; they just elect bad leaders (Nixon, Reagan, G. W. Bush), then follow them slavishly and uncritically. For all the egregious damage he inflicted on the country, Bush was elected to a second term.

What I am really against is American arrogance (and one other factor I’ll cover at the end). This is an attitude that many Americans have and they come by it honestly; but it is so ingrained in the culture, they are not even aware of it.

It takes an outsider to see what Americans themselves are unable to see. It’s like a fish in water—totally oblivious to the water in which it swims. It’s a manifestation of what I call Maslow’s Hammer; Abraham Maslow was an American psychologist and co-founder of humanistic psychology.

He famously said: “If all you have is a hammer, you tend to treat everything as if it were a nail.”

And so it is with American attitudes. If all you have is Constitutional mythology, jingoistic patriotism and an over-inflated regard for your own national importance, then who’s surprised that Americans act so callously/thoughtlessly towards others—both in their own country and around the world?

One comment made is that Canadians should pay Americans for all the protection we are given. This is oxymoronic. If we weren’t next to America, we wouldn’t need the protection.

In fact, Canadians and most nations of the earth actually need protection from the United States. As the English Playwright Harold Pinter said in his 2005 Nobel speech:

“The crimes of the United States have been systematic, constant, vicious, remorseless, but very few people have actually talked about them. You have to hand it to America. It has exercised a quite clinical manipulation of power worldwide while masquerading as a force for universal good.”

And yet with typical American denialism, Rush Limbaugh said: “America is the solution to the world’s problems. We are not the problem.”

Limbaugh admires Reaganism, being especially animated by Reagan’s belief in American exceptionalism:

“Reagan rejected the notion among liberals and conservatives alike who, for different reasons, believed America was in a permanent state of decline. He had faith in the wisdom of the American people…He knew America wasn’t perfect, but he also knew it was the most perfect of nations. Reagan was an advocate of Americanism.”

(Americans tend to know so little about the rest of the world that I would be genuinely surprised if you actually know who Robert Mugabe is.)

In another story, I reviewed Overthrow by Stephen Kinzer (an American). He described, again in depressing detail, how the American government overthrew legitimate foreign governments, often at the behest of American business. He begins with Hawaii in 1893 (Dole Fruit Company) and goes on to cover Cuba, Philippines, Panama (twice), Nicaragua, Honduras (Cuyamel Fruit Company and two others—Standard Fruit and United Fruit), Guatemala (United Fruit), Iran (oil industry), South Vietnam (communism—see below), Chile (ITT), and Iraq.

In 1993, the House and Senate passed resolutions apologizing to the native Hawaiians for the 1893 overthrow. The entire Hawaiian congressional delegation was in the Oval Office on Nov 22 to watch Clinton sign the resolution.

Senator Daniel Akaka said: “One hundred years ago, a powerful country helped overthrow a legal government. We’ve finally come to the point where this has been acknowledged by the United States.”

“Almost every American overthrow of a foreign government has left in its wake a bitter residue of pain and anger. Some have led to the slaughter of innocents. Others have turned whole nations, and even whole regions of the world, into violent cauldrons of anti-American passion”

Let's Talk About Iran

The most infamous example of this is Iran. In 1953 the CIA deposed a democratically elected government that had embraced fundamental American ideals, including attempting to manage its own natural resources. This latter was not in the interests of the oil companies, so out went Mossadegh.

Elected in the spring of 1951, Dr. Mohammed Mossadegh was Prime Minister of Iran. Educated in France and Switzerland he was the first Iranian to achieve a doctorate in law from a European university.

He was descended from royalty on his mother’s side and his father had been Iran’s finance minister for more than twenty years. In January 1952, Time named him Man of the Year—over all the other towering figures of the time like Winston Churchill, Harry Truman and Dwight Eisenhower.

The magazine called him “the Iranian George Washington” and “the most world-renowned man his ancient race had produced for centuries.”

The CIA and the 'Angle Iranian Oil Company overthrew
Iran's democratically elected president for a better deal on
oil. Today that company is called BP, shocking... eh?

Unfortunately, he was a pro-Iranian idealist who believed that the Iranian people deserved more than the 16% oil royalties they had been getting from the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company. Both houses of parliament voted unanimously to nationalize the oil company.

They also voted to reimburse the British for the money it had spent building its wells and refinery. This is the kind of thing that the electorate in both Britain and US should have applauded.

But the leaders, President Eisenhower and the two Dulles brothers, who had the real power in America, rejected the idea. They didn’t want their money back. They wanted the endless future profits.

Fast forward to 1979 and the Iranian takeover of the American Embassy. The American people were self-righteously outraged. How could the Iranians do such a thing after all that America had done for them? What ingrates.

But the Iranians had the last laugh. By making Carter look weak, they gave America Ronald Reagan.

As Andrew Bacevich (professor of international relations at Boston University and a retired career officer in the United States Army) wrote: “During the Carter years, the federal deficit had averaged $54.5 billion annually. During the Reagan era, deficits skyrocketed, averaging $210.6 billion over the course of Reagan’s two terms in office. Overall federal spending nearly doubled, from $590.9 billion in 1980 to $1.14 trillion in 1989. The federal government did not shrink. It grew, the bureaucracy swelling by nearly 5 percent while Reagan occupied the White House. Although his supporters had promised that he would shut down extraneous government programs and agencies, that turned out to be just so much hot air.”

Ronald Reagan peddled his “morning in America” mythology to the American people who overwhelmingly swallowed it.

This is the kind of thing that is “self-evident” to outsiders, but to which most Americans are oblivious.

Religiosity

The American culture is so steeped in religion, that most are unaware of it. It’s just the way things are and not even open to scrutiny.

So, when an outsider like me, points it out, readers are angered, outraged or offended—sometimes all three. It’s a reaction to my pointing out something about which they are sensitive, without even consciously knowing they are sensitive about it.

This sounds like one of those unanswerable accusations and, from an American point of view, it is unanswerable.

But it’s embarrassingly obvious to outsiders who don’t know whether to laugh or cry when confronted with Americans who, despite their nation exhibiting the highest reaches of scientific accomplishment like putting men on the moon, deny evolution because it contradicts their national religiosity.

Coincident with the presidency of Ronald Reagan was the rise of the so-called Moral Majority led by Jerry Falwell who summed up the American religious orthodoxy by saying, among other things:

Billy Graham had been a spiritual adviser to American presidents starting with Harry Truman and, in that position, wielded immense influence over the American religious character.

(G.W. Bush used to end his speeches with “God bless America”. Our American wannabe Prime Minister Steve Harper started ending his speeches with “God bless Canada”. Then he stopped. I have it on good authority that Bush had called him and told him he couldn’t do that anymore. God can only bless one nation at a time, Bush reportedly said, and it’s not Canada.)

A significant driving element of American culture is fear of communism. Obamacare is widely feared as a step towards communism. But what is communism? It’s a political philosophy advocating societal cooperation—something that is overtly discouraged in America.

Americans in their ignorance have been taught to believe that Russian communism was a threat. First, Russia had never been a communist nation and Stalin was not a “leftist” but simply a thug—a totalitarian dictator, like Hitler, Mussolini and Robert Mugabe.

Communism could never have worked in the U.S.S.R. because until only a few decades before the 1917 Revolution, Russia was a feudal society and most Russians were serfs—the country was at about the same level of development and political sophistication as Europe in the14th century.

Realistically, communism could no more be established in the U.S. than democracy could be established in Russia. But the American people swallowed the mythology.

Looking at American politics and the national economy, an outsider could be forgiven for thinking that the American people are either stupid or deluded. I suggest it’s a combination of being oblivious and wilfully fooling themselves.

“In a nation that was proud of hard work, strong families, close-knit communities, and our faith in God,” he said, “too many of us now tend to worship self-indulgence and consumption. Human identity is no longer defined by what one does, but by what one owns. But we’ve discovered that owning things and consuming things does not satisfy our longing for meaning. We’ve learned that piling up material goods cannot fill the emptiness of lives which have no confidence or purpose.”

But, as sociologist Vance Packard had warned two decades earlier to no avail: “The nation faces the hazard of developing a healthy economy within the confines of a psychologically impoverished society.”

The American people have been taught (no other word for it) that consumption is next to godliness, and have continued down the road to self-immolation. The only beneficiaries of such a policy are the wealthy owners of American businesses. The losers are the American people; in fact everyone else in the world.

This goes back, roughly, to the 1950s when American culture embraced global gluttony. Today (as I mentioned in “Shutdown”), the U.S. has about 4.5% of the world’s population; produces 2% of the world’s petroleum, but uses 25% of the world’s production. The equivalent gluttony applies to American usage of virtually all other global resources. The tragic thing about this is that Americans don’t even have the grace or wit to be embarrassed.

This, probably, is the main source of what some people call my “vitriol”. Canada is third in the world, after Brazil and Russia in renewable water resources. This, along with our oil, and other mineral resources, will be increasingly coveted by the U.S. And as history has only too depressingly shown: if the U.S. wants something and there’s no other way—they just take it. At gunpoint if necessary. Global armed robbers.

I don’t fear so much for myself, as for the generations that will follow me. Already, the Middle East is in serious disarray which may disrupt oil supplies to the U.S. Venezuela is no friend of America, so the potential for another Chile is very real. And Canada. There are quislings in this country who will be happy to hand over water, oil, whatever the American people think (with the prodding of business) that they need.

Many Americans are sufficiently deluded and misinformed to believe that just because we speak English, we’re like them. We’re not and we don’t want to be.

Note to commenters: As Daniel Patrick Moynihan once said: “Everyone is entitled to their own opinions, but not their own facts.” If you find any errors of fact, above, go for it.

Salem-News.com Top Stories

No One Owns the Future

The Ugly Origins of Trump's America First Policy

A One-State Solution Could Transform the World

rewilding LA: Matilija Dam History and Ecosystems

One Killed and Two Injured in Shooting Near South Salem High School

Comments Leave a comment on this story.

All comments and messages are approved by people and self promotional links or unacceptable comments are denied.

Lynn Simmons April 16, 2011 12:16 pm (Pacific time)

Regarding 1973, much happened in that year, and I imagine many have subjectively prioritized certain events differently from others. I just had my 4th child, our family had easy access to gasoline (oil costs shot through the roof back then) because my family owned a large car dealership (we have three now, and no union employees. Also our employees have voted down union membership every year since 1970), our soldiers from Vietnam were coming home, Nixon froze prices for a while, and many other things that one may subjectively give prioity to took place. By the way are you familiar with the fact that the top 3% of our wealthy pay more taxes than 97% of the rest of the taxpayers? And if we tax everyone making over $250, 000 at 100%, we would still would NOT be able to have any significant impact on our deficit (but we sure would with job creation, and it's lower taxes, including low capital gains, that jacks up tax revenue)? Maybe you should enlarge your research base because those far left sites, like the people currently in my Whitehouse, have no background in running a business successfully, much less the ability to comprehend the micro/macro forces that are in play, and their dynamic nature. If we get a chief executive and a compliant congress to formally declare that independent energy development is a national security priority, then just like our moon landing space program, we would become energy independent in short order. In addition, all court proceedings to stall that development would be moot. Do we have the "energy" reserves? Yes, we have the largest in the world, and the tech to do it on a large scale, would quickly be made. You may learn something if you read some professional journals that deal with petroleum/chemical engineering, and other energy production capabilities we have when (a given!) the legislation is passed to let lose the experts, who by the way, are the experts who developed Canada's energy sources, and other's around the world.

Lynn Simmons April 16, 2011 12:09 pm (Pacific time)

Daniel your supposition about energy consumption, just like your whimsical analogy about condoms, is nonsensical. As far as your analysis about America's middleclass creation and it's predicted fate by you, that is another failed understanding of the historical reality and projected future of the middleclass. Of course regarding the latter, time will tell, but there are countless micro-models of communities where the middleclass have, and are still thriving without unions impacting in any significant way, while just the opposite is true in many locations in cities/communities like Detroit where unions have been large economic players. Canada also has many communities that do well without union influence, but your form of government makes your citizens less than whole in terms of inniative, sadly true. Unfortunately we are going to have to wait until 2012 when a new power comes in to get the policies we need to regrow our economy, unless something changes current leadership. We will end up being much stronger, for the character of Americans' is one where problem-solving abilities have shown to be an innate quality of our unequalled success.

Lynn Simmons April 15, 2011 6:02 pm (Pacific time)

Daniel Johnson, let's say your article has some premise(s) we find even remotely interesting: I assume you have extrapolated the two below statements based on a comprehensive scientifically constructed poll, and gleaned all info from primary sources? Very doubtful.
"dj...the U.S. has about 4.5% of the world’s population; produces 2% of the world’s petroleum, but uses 25% of the world’s production. The equivalent gluttony applies to American usage of virtually all other global resources. The tragic thing about this is that {"Americans don’t even have the grace or wit to be embarrassed."} // "dj ...You need to pull your head out of that dark place where you've put it. Recent studies have shown that public sector workers get paid about the same or even slightly less than private sector workers with the same or equivalent education and experience." The first statement is intentionally misleading and fails to make a contrasting comparison re: America's number one economy and our energy efficiency, which is far superior to any other large economy, including, in comparison, the considerably smaller economy of Canada. Plus the fact that there are several countries who on a per capita breakdown use far more energy, including Canada, ( my [assumption] is Canadians don’t even have the grace or wit to be embarrassed by their very high enegy consumption.). Note: I see a previous poster provided links for energy consumption averages. The second statement is completely wrong, and an elementary student could find that public employees are now making more money/benefits than the people who are paying them, and the trend is increasing rapidly. In fact it is these public unions that are slowly bleeding the middleclass. We do not have a problem with tax revenue, but with overspending! My conclusion is that you just hate those who are correcting your errors, you hate capitalism, which has provided you with more than "YOU" deserve to have. I suggest you learn to deal with reality, and your desire to misinform has few takers. Ironically you live in a country in which if you wrote about the incredibly negative aspects of Canada you would be censored and/or arrested. Canada has no First Amendment parallel even remotely like ours. God Bless America.

Thanks for your comment; I will address your two main points.

You mention America’s far superior energy efficiency. Given that this is true, what you are saying is that without that efficiency, the U.S. would be using more like 35% or 45% or 55% of the world’s oil production—still with only having 2% of proven oil reserves. Your defense is along the lines of a rapist who justifies himself by saying that because he used condoms, none of his victims could get pregnant.

You say that “public unions…are slowly bleeding the middleclass”. This statement shows an incredible lack of social and economic awareness. There is a perfect correlation between the rise of union membership and the middle class from the end of WW2 up to 1973. No unions, no sizeable middle class. There has been a lockstep decline in both unions and the middle class since 1973. Pop quiz: What happened in 1973?

Charlene Young April 14, 2011 4:43 pm (Pacific time)

Daniel your article was full of many inaccuracies, several of which were pointed out. You then spun your responses, giving full demonstration that you are woefully unprepared to debate in an honest fashion. You have an obvious agenda that gives you a rather myopic and limited ability to be aware of what to do, other than bluster insults. I taught "Debate" for many years to high school students, many who used those skills later in life, in a very successful manner. I have probably forgotten more about debate than any Canadian would ever hope to know. I say that with experience from the perfect "win" record against supposedly the best Canada had to offer when they came to our school district for debate competition. Canada fields some sports teams that seem comfortable in 2nd, 3rd, and lower places, but the cerebral contests don't go well for them at all. Daniel Johnson you seem to be pretty smug, but I have no idea why, other than you have something else going on that is beyond my ability to offer advice on what you should do to possibly remedy your situation. I do make an offering from my husband for readers of your articles, but my guess is that it provides to much exposure to your left flank. George Young: "It would be advisable for one to see the stated goals for the anti-Constitution people/groups here in North America (and elsewhere). Go to the first link below and start at number #15 and notice how things are developing. If you appreciate your individual freedoms, there are some really bad people who don't care about you or your freedoms. For example look at these goal statements and see if they remind you of someone: 29. Discredit the American Constitution by calling it inadequate, old fashioned, out of step with modern needs, a hindrance to cooperation between nations on a worldwide basis. 30. Discredit the American founding fathers. Present them as selfish aristocrats who had no concern for the "common man." (Note: There are also those who praise the Founders, but distort their accomplishments, motivations and goals for America. These people are easy to spot by just reading the Bill of Rights and then think critically about those rights).31. Belittle all forms of American culture and discourage the teaching of American history on the ground that it was only a minor part of "the big picture." (This last one has been going on for decades in some urban communities and is being challenged in some states at this time)." http://redstaterocketeer.blogspot.com/2007/09/45-goals-of-communist-party.html // Communist Manifesto: http://www.criminalgovernment.com/docs/planks.html

I have an agenda? Who's surprised? Everyone has an agenda, if you have any understanding of psychology. It's the frame/paradigm/worldview through which we understand the world. I checked out redstaterocketeer. Does that author have an agenda? Of course not, he/she has the facts and the correct take on reality. Anyone who does not agree with that orientation has an "agenda".

I notice you still persist in your logical fallacy: labelling all Canadians on the basis of your limited experience. Tsk Tsk.

America is a nation founded on and managed with fear.

1776: Fear of the Briish

1860s: A generalized fear that maimed and killed hundreds of thousands of the nation's citizens.

1900s: Fear of the world (isolationism)

20th century: Fear of sex (Puritanism, the fear that someone, somewhere might be having fun) which segued into national prohibitions on alcohol and drugs.

Let me affirm that there are tens of millions of good Americans. You mention that there are some "really bad people". True. But are you willing to acknowledge that many of them are American citizens? Consider the economic collapse of 2007/8 which brought the country to its knees and finally facilitated the demise of the middle-class. The U.S. will recover, but the middle class will not. You're watching the formation of a class society before your very eyes. Was that caused by "good people". Speaking of bad people--don't overlook the Bush/Cheney cabal.

I also acknowledge that the U.S. has made many positive contributions to the world. Unfortunately, Shakespeare had things pegged long before: "The evil that men do lives after them; The good is oft interred with their bones". The evil that the U.S. has left behind just over the last century alone is a very long list right up to the present day.

Roger April 14, 2011 9:41 am (Pacific time)

Daniel---"To paraphrase GWB: Bring 'em on.": So are you one of those Canadian cowboys? From what I read about Charlene's background and her statements, why on earth would she enter a debate with you? What a lowering of standards, in my opinion. Looking at Daniel's biography, ahhhh, what's there? Dan your statement's about certain characteristics of America that you put in a negative light, were outed and proven misleading. Ergo, your article is disinformational propaganda, and is unworthy of reasoned debate from my perspective.

You don't get it, do you. She claims to be a superior debater, then commits one of the most elementary logical fallacies. I don't think we'll hear from her again. She'll be too embarrassed.

Again, I ask: Point out the errors and misleading statements. Put up or shut up.

Daniel Johnson April 13, 2011 7:18 pm (Pacific time)

Charlene Young: Just wanted to point out one trivial little detail. You wrote:

"Pretty clear you have had no training in debate, but then most Canadians I know are very weak in this area..."

The clear implication is that Canadians overall, or a large number are poorly skilled in debate, based on your experience of a few Canadians (not even all the Canadians you know, just most.) The logical error you make is called, I believe: a dicto secundum quid ad dictum simpliciter, but as an American debater, you would know that. If that's the level of your debating skills, I look forward to it. To paraphrase GWB: Bring 'em on.

Charlene Young April 13, 2011 9:54 am (Pacific time)

Daniel I have considerable experience with public unions having been a member of one after leaving public school teaching after 23 years (I was a union steward), and then transferred to a private school system. I cashed in my PERS account and invested it in various stocks. They did quite well, even after the 1987 crash, when I doubled down. Over ten years ago at 60 I retired, but am still involved with both the public and private school system, first as a consultant, now as a volunteer. I have been highly involved in teaching/administration for nearly a half century, and I'm still learning new things everyday. My soon to be 97 year old mother, a retired college professor, still provides advice to many currently in both the public and private school systems. I have yet to meet anyone in my age group who considers the current state of public unions as a positive, and are fully behind anyone in power whose aim is to remove the current national union leadership from power, and pursue possible prosecution for many of them. I have a 48 year old daughter who became a state public union member at 18 while a research assistant in college. This summer she will have 30 years on PERS and will retire as a high school administrator, a vice principal. She will start a new position with a private school in the fall. Her retirement benefit will exceed her current salary/benefit package, making it a no-brainer to retire. Is that fair? As she told me several of her associates in the federal system doing similar work, whose educational background is less than hers, make nearly twice what she currently does. Those in the private system, who have similar educational background as her make less than she currently does. Fair? Public unions, and large private unions have become political kingmakers, they have allowed mediocrity to become the norm, and our average end products are the evidence. If "Muarry" does not point out your errors and omissions, I will, that is, if you want to see how weak your thesis is? Pretty clear you have had no training in debate, but then most Canadians I know are very weak in this area, especially Naomi Klein and those youngsters (and oldsters) like her.

Of course Canadians are weak in debating areas. After all Americans are sooooooooooooooo superior.

You mention fair. Is it fair that the U.S. has 4.5% of the world's population, produces 2% of the oil but consumers 25% of the world's production?

Debate that point, if you can.

Muarry April 12, 2011 6:53 pm (Pacific time)

Daniel I notice you get peeved when someone calls you out on one of your many inaccuracies. You seem to think that people just don't give a rip when we have some foreigner making false statements. From what I've read, and the links posted, you have simply been called out and you still take umbrage when some educates you. But then your purpose is not really about informing is it? You have a very tiny group of malcontents that may reward you with "attaboy Dan", but you are unable to debate with the big boys, as your comments expose.

DJ: OK, Muarry, or whatever your name is, point out my error or errors!

Tim King: Roger, Tony Moyletti, and now Muarry? That isn't even how you spell the name, of course since it is a poser name you probably have no reason to know that. I have little tolerance for those who masquerade and misrepresent themselves. For the record, that is the extent of names associated with this IP at this time. The answer is to know who in the hell you are and be an honest person here.

Anonymous April 12, 2011 5:23 pm (Pacific time)

Daniel..I decided not to send links about canada and the U.S. becoming one entity. I think its just better for us all to watch it happen before our eyes. If you have not seen it yet, its because you dont want to see it. Enjoy
The rothchilds/queen of england/banks/oil companies, own everything. Including harper and obama. Its just the way it is. My suggestion of late? Learn about the love and mercy of Jesus Christ. Watch and see, dont take my word for it, just watch and see.

You're not posting links, Stephen, because there are none. It's all just part of your fantasy world.

Charlene Young April 12, 2011 3:25 pm (Pacific time)

Daniel regarding your comments on approximate parity of salary/benefits for public union members and private non-union workers (the latter whose taxes pay for the public union workers salary/benefits), that dog don't hunt. I can see where someone would make a feeble attempt to spin it, but some of the below statements pretty much refute that credible possibility. Also look at how many private jobs were lost and how many union jobs were created. Then of course we have the political aspect to consider, but less revenue is the major issue, except for the communists. I put this statement into a search engine: "41 states unions make more than private", and bam, the below came up along with dozens of sites. Maybe that's why we Americans use less juice than you Canadians, we know how to do research more efficiently and acurately. Please note that federal workers income is double that of the private sector, and these federal employees do not have collective bargaining, ummm. "Public Employees Paid More Than Private Workers in 41 States. Public employees in 41 states earn higher average pay and benefits than private workers in the same state, a USA TODAY analysis finds. The analysis of government data found "that public employees' compensation has grown faster than the earnings of private workers since 2000. Primary cause: the rising value of benefits." Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/public-employees-paid-more-than-private-workers-in-41-states-2011-3#ixzz1JLgxxDui "Federal workers earning double their private counterparts.At a time when workers' pay and benefits have stagnated, federal employees' average compensation has grown to more than double what private sector workers earn, a USA TODAY analysis finds.
Federal workers have been awarded bigger average pay and benefit increases than private employees for nine years in a row. The compensation gap between federal and private workers has doubled in the past decade..." snip "Between December 2007 and December 2009, the private sector lost more than 7.3 million jobs, yet the number of government jobs actually increased by about 100,000. http://www.usatoday.com/money/economy/income/2010-08-10-1Afedpay10_ST_N.htm

You sound like a really mean-spirited person. You must be very well off to be so down on your fellow citizens. I notice (along with Bill G.) that you can't address the real points of my article but have to distract by pointing out failings in Canada . We have problems and failings, but they pale in comparison to what's happening in the U.S. The U.S. is the most economically inequitable country in the developed world and getting more so. In a word, you come across as a troll.

Muarry April 12, 2011 10:26 am (Pacific time)

The maturing of the American psyche is happening now, very quickly.
The reason many democrats (but not all, that's for sure) disliked Regan so much, was that even though he was a lifetime union member, he knew their time to end had come. For example, when Wisconsin democrats fled the state in order to avoid voting on splendiferous public sector union contracts, did they happen to notice that the rest of the country is in the midst of a massive recession?

For years, Democrats have been using taxpayer money so that their buddies in public sector unions never have to know when there's a recession. People who are already suffering have to suffer more so that those who are doing pretty well don't have to suffer at all.

The high salaries and magnificent benefits paid to government employees are used to fund the public sector unions, which then funnel a portion of that money back to the Democrats, who vote for the pay packages of government workers. Government employees will always have more passion and commitment about increasing their own salaries and perks than will the taxpayers, who have to worry about their own jobs and salaries. The unions function as a pass-through from the taxpayers straight to Democrats running for re-election. As a result, taxpayers are paying people to continually raise their taxes.
That is simply a fact about government jobs that can't be avoided. What doesn't make sense is to implement a system that invites this kind of mutual back-scratching between the Democrats and public sector unions -- to wit, collective bargaining where there is no "management," but only co-conspirators against the taxpayers on both sides of the bargaining table.
The public -- especially the taxpayer -- will always lose. This process is coming to an end, and those sympathetic with Marxist ideology are seething in anger in their last gasps of existence. It will be getting ugly, but it will abate as union heads are deprived of funds, as union dues are no longer collected by the government and left to be given voluntarily by members while their expenses go up along with everyone elses. Indiana provides an example regarding what union members do when they individually pay dues.

You're posting under different names, but I'll reply anyway...

You need to pull your head out of that dark place where you've put it. Recent studies have shown that public sector workers get paid about the same or even slightly less than private sector workers with the same or equivalent education and experience. But the U.S., particularly since Reagan, loves to hate the government which, in reality, is an extension of themselves. If government doesn't work, it's because people like you won't let it work or sabotage it whenever you can. Marxism? It's just called cooperation, an alien concept to many Americans.

Okay, you can put your head back up, again.

Hank Ruark April 12, 2011 9:07 am (Pacific time)

To all: Bill G. spreads both mis-and disinformation in his generalize praise of Re, Ryan's deeply flawed so-called "new plan" which merely sugarcoats same old balderdash, but goes far beyond that in overgeneralizing and misstating known and proven factual analysis of current American economic situation. See my Parts One and Two, still current, for further detail in Comments and responses,and watch for Part Three in which same points will be further refuted. Readers here may find current references to documenting national articles, given in my responses, of real interest and application to points raised here and supplementing still further what Dan has so superbly laid out for all to see...and understand, if capable.

Hank Ruark April 12, 2011 8:58 am (Pacific time)

C. wrote: "...and try to imagine how little the world cares." That's the very attitude that now shames and stymies particularly close evaluative attention to past horrors such as the Reagan regime, surely the foundation happening for much, if not most, of what we must now somehow put right and prevail-over to make the world what it can and should have been for decades: "...safe for democracy" and Founders-level true Americanism.

Hank Ruark April 12, 2011 8:54 am (Pacific time)

Friend Dan et al:
Thank you for deep detail, true from history no matter how depressing and deflating for those who see in your very comprehensive and accurate overview refutation for their own tightly held personal misperceptions of the historical record for realities.
Strikes me that yours supports by its reflection of the general American population precisely what my current Three-Parter tries to state, by putting right out there in plain view what has actually occurred over past decades.
I appeciate especially yours to C. and B.G., to whom offered direct contact (with my emailer) meant nothing more than another shot-elicited here.
You and I have some solid disagreements, but yours on Reagan and other historical happenings is flawless, accurate and fairly stated.
Might add that further near-proof now exists of original "dirty trick" to defeat Carter via special "October surprise", to be overviewed here in S-N when time )and space !) will allow. Iran-Contra was not by any means a single-shot situation but part of ongoing overall plan driven by imbeciles ready and all too willing to ignore and defy Congress and established law...and begin what has proven root of the Far East "revolting developments" ever since...
Will add only that Klein's book when deeply examined adds great further detail and documentation to precisely what you present here. Wonder if any of those so willing for vociferous denials have ever read her book ? Re Reagan characteristics and true historical record, same point prevails re many titles --mine own shelf some seven feet long and still growing, especially with much material now surfacing after recent Reagan anniversary.

Thank you, Hank

Bill Griffith April 11, 2011 7:03 pm (Pacific time)

Daniel in the first link I provided (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_electric_energy_consumption) it shows Canada consuming @ 1,919 Watts per capita, and the U.S. citizen @ 1,460 watts per capita, or a difference of 450 watts at Canada's high of 1,910 watts, approx. 25%. Certainly a different take on what you wrote in your article, don't you agree? Regarding what energy we produce and what we pay for energy on the open market does not change the fact that Canada has a much higher per capita user rate of energy. Also considering that we have the largest economy the world has ever known, our rate of usage demonstrates our usage superiority over many other countries, and it's improving constantly as we become more efficient. Maybe a review on production coupled with average product development energy use ranging from cost of a goober to a rocket engine for space travel would be a better reflection of just how good we are compared to other economies? That's all I'm trying to point out Daniel, not trying to psyche you out...

I wrote: "the U.S. has about 4.5% of the world’s population; produces 2% of the world’s petroleum, but uses 25% of the world’s production". I made no reference at all to either electricity or per capita.

Charlene Young April 11, 2011 10:46 am (Pacific time)

I have often been critical of President Reagan, but when comparing him to presidents during my lifetime going back to FDR, I have no doubt that he fit the time period superbly while president. History will be very kind to this man, and it's obvious that the vast majority of our "informed" citizens consider President Reagan as one of the best leaders the world has ever known. For those who dislike him, enjoy your feelings about him, and try to imagine how little the world cares.

It's not a matter of disliking him, but a matter of how much damage he has done to both the U.S. and world economies with his voodoo economics and the resulting damage to the daily lives of people everywhere on into the future. The judgement of voodoo economics was made by H. W. Bush when he was running against Reagan in the primaries. But, once chosen as the VP running mate...

Bill Griffith April 11, 2011 2:00 pm (Pacific time)

If you find any errors of fact, above, go for it". Once again you use the data about our energy consumption, but fail to acknowledge that on a per capita level Canadians use 25% more, why? By the way we have need for air conditioning as well heat in regards to energy consumption. One arrives at that enegy use data by totaling all energy used by a country, then dividing that number by the population. Then considering the size of our economy, we do very well in our energy use, which is continually being improved. Do you want an income redistribution for the world? If so, that is not going to happen anytime in the near future. When you take away the profit motive, you take away considerable inniative for a large segment of the population. America has done well because we have allowed people to advance free of oppressive oversight. Unfortunately we have to completely reorganize much of our spending, and a Rep. Ryan has put forth a budget proposal that in time will be implemented that will reduce spending while not diminishing our social programs. When taxes and rules/regulations become oppressive our economy slows down. The evidence that keeping all costs down helps to distribute income while also improving the overall economy. Sure the rich get richer, but so what, we still lift all people up to higher quality living standards. How do you think Canadian business would do if they paid the same corporate taxes as we? It's over twice as much. Our social programs and the fraud and waste, along with different states having very onerous taxes provides excellent models on what works and what doesn't. I imagine Obama to get re-elected will come out soon promising spending/ tax cuts and incentives, but his record of failed campaign promises and dearth of leadership has cooked his goose. In 2013, when a much needed conservative takeover will happen, then the economy will have stable growth like we had under Reagan and JFK, who also was a tax cutter who believed that was how you grow an economy. Not to worry Daniel, Canada will never be invaded by us because of our energy needs, in fact in time you will be importing from us, and eventually Canada will be absorped in a similar fashion as Guam is presently, then in time like Puerto Rico. You will never become anything similar to a state, sorry, your citizen dependence on government handouts is just not cost-effective. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_electric_energy_consumption // http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_energy_consumption_per_capita

Not only do you need some basic lessons in logic, you could also use an upgrade in arithmetic.

According to your link (hhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_energy_consumption_per_capita) I find the U.S. at 7794.8 and Canada at 8300.7.. Doing the elementary division, I find that Canada uses 6.5% more, per capita.

Going to your other link (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_electric_energy_consumption) I find the U.S. at 2.4% of the population, consuming 10.6% of the electricity.

But, if we go to a third link (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_energy_consumption_and_production) we find that the U.S. produces 15% of the world's energy, but consumes 21%.

Anonymous April 11, 2011 11:03 am (Pacific time)

Since Harper and the obama admin, have already signed agreements to make the U.S. and Canada ONE entity, guess Canada is part of the mess now too.

News to me. If you have any sources, I would like to see them. Thanks.

Bill Griffith April 11, 2011 9:03 am (Pacific time)

Daniel you immediately insult over 50% of Americans, then proceed to continue insulting the other relevant 49.578%% as you demonstrate your complete misreading of not only American culture, but the accurate flow of the history that got us here. Your list of Reagan as a negative influence is what really shows your lack of interpreting who we are. Not only is he the most popularly elected president ( when "re-elected" he won a "record" 49 states, and over 20 million jobs were created during his administration), he also kept us very safe [domestically], and began a heavy investment into R and D that not only created the tech we have today here in America, but also allowed you to have access to that relatively inexpensive keyboard you are using to provide this article's creative content. Those who dislike him, are a very small minority, albeit, loud and squeaky, just the same they are irrelevant because of their small population. I would also add that when you essentially cherry-pick different writers and their quotes to supposedly bolster your thesis, it is usually based on a premise that has no merit, other than I guess you and those who have no background in "logic" and formal debate based on that logic. If you used national studies reinforced by professional pollsters concerning the "feelings and attitudes" of Americans, which you often assert, would be helpful. Have any? Otherwise you just offer opinions that you favor that are voiced by a tiny minority. Do you think you would have done well in most any American university back 30 plus years ago using that format, and your style of writing?

In Eugene Jarecki’s documentary, “Reagan,” Mark Hertsgaard, the author of On Bended Knee: The Press and the Reagan Presidency, says in the film, “You cannot be fair in your historical evaluation of Ronald Reagan if you don’t look at the terrible damage his economic policies did to this country.”

That's at least two of us who are critical of RR.

You could use some lessons in logic. A lot of people used to believe the earth was flat, but that didn't make it true. Reagan's immense popularity is more a testament to the gullibility of the American electorate. There: I've just insulted 100% of the people who voted for Reagan. Don't forget, G.W. Bush was also re-elected.

J+ April 11, 2011 7:28 am (Pacific time)

In commenting on (mainstream/stereotypical) "American arrogance," Mr. Johnson has fallen prey to it himself! Let us not forget that 'America' composes two continents, not just one country. Playing into the popular misconception via applying the misnomer 'American' to call things regarding the USoA is merely honoring the misguided hegemony. I regard Canada in about the same light as the 'America' portrayed in the above article. But as a so-called 'American,' I have never had anything but contempt for Republicans, Democrats, Christers, consumers, credit, or just about anything that supposedly defines my citizenship. To keep with my recent alliteration, only the Constitution commands my respect. If only it did the same in the USoA Legislative and Executive offices. Pretty sure it was abandoned more than a Century before my birth.

Douglas Benson April 11, 2011 6:45 am (Pacific time)

Hey Dan ,thanks for your work and your voice .I enjoy the exercise.My spelling has improved too. The sad fact is the nuts take center stage and are more motivated. We seem to be too busy to bother with the issues untill they effect us personally and directly. See Im too busy right now,got to get in the pool and then look for work . Peace

[Return to Top]

A Note on the American Psyche

Let's Talk About Iran

Religiosity

Quick Links

DINING

MUST SEE SALEM

AUCTIONS - APPRAISALS

CONSTRUCTION SERVICES

ONLINE SHOPPING

Advertise with Salem-News